The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
[Med.Entomol.Zool,Nb].53 SuppL2 p,259-273 2002)
Nomenclature ofMusca carnan'a Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera: Sarcophagidae)
Thomas PApE
Department ofEntomology S4,edish Mitseum ofNbtural History RO. Box 5000Z - SE 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden E-mail:thomas,[email protected]
(Received: 7 November 2001; Accepted: 1O December 200l)
Key words: nomenclature, Diptera, Sarcophagidae, priority; stability
Abstract: The nomenelature of lhsca earnaria Linnaeus, 1758, currently in the SZireophaga genus Meigen, 1826, is suceinctly reviewed. The original type material is discussed and argued to consist ofat least one North American as well as several European specimens, with most ofthe latter no longer in existence. The lectotype designation and the resulting nomenclatural changes are discussed in light of recent critique, The lectotype designation is in agreement with the relevant articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but by abandoning the (at that time) current usage it may arguably be considered too rigid an application of the Principle of Priority. As such, the lectotype designation may not have been optimal when proposed, yet the general acceptance in the scientific Iiterature emerging during the Iast fifteen years provides hope fbr nomenclatural stability, and no contrary action is recommended.
INTRODUCTION
Linnaean types still have the capacity to stir up nomenclature. Some of these old types have remained unrevised, probably from a combination of awe and tradition, while others
have been revised only recently (e.g., Day and Fitton, 1978; Pont, 1981; Thempson et aL 1982; Richet, 1987). The nomenclature of the only nominal flesh fly taxon proposed by Linnaeus: Musca carnaria Linnaeus, 1758, was revised by Richet (1987), who designated a lectotype chosen among two specimens in the Linnaean collection. Lehrer (2000) criticised this designation, as he found the nomenclatural changes unacceptably at odds with current
usage. Neither author, however, has fully acknowledged that zoological nomenclature is as much a study ofhistory as oftaxonomy and biology, and it is the purpose of the present paper to review succinctly the nomenclature of the nominal taxon Musca carnaria Linnaeus, 1758
(currently in genus Sbrcophcrga Meigen) and to discuss Richet's lectotype designation in the light of the critique addressed by Lehrer, In so doing, I refer to IUchet (1987) and Lehrer (2000) without redundantly repeating the year, and I cite the relevant Articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) as they appear in the 4th edition (ICZN 1999), with the equivalent and mostly identical Articles of the 3rd edition (ICZN
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
260 Med. EntomoL. Zool.
1985), which were in effect when Richet published his lectotype designation, in brackets,
TYPE MATERIAL
Linnaeus (1758: 596) placed Musca carnaria as the 53rd species ofthe genus Musca in the 10th edition of his unsurpassed Systema Nbturae. Following the description and list of
"Hbbitat references he gave the information: in Cadaveribus Europae, etiam Amerieae.
Ktilm." In other words, Linnaeus considered this fly to be a carrion breeder distributed in
Europe as well as in [North] Arnerica. Linnaeus gave as a source of (part of) this information
"Kalm", which refers to Per Kalm, a Swedish naturalist and Linnaean disciple, who collected
in North America and published on the North American biota including its insect fauna (Kerklconen, 1959; for several additional references see Evenhuis, 1997). The brief mention of a carrion-breeding habit ("Hbbitat in Cadaveribus", note the slight difference from the corresponding entry in Fauna Svecica, where Linnaeus (1746) gave
"Habitat in carnibus recentibus") possibly originated from such infbrmation in the literature sources cited by Linnaeus; yet it may as well refer to original observations of Iarvae in
decaying meat, made by Linnaeus himselC or more probably by De Geer, a contemporary
naturalist and fe11ow countryman to Linnaeus and a remarkably keen observer of natural
history (Persson et aL, 1984), De Geer (1776) provided (unavailable) names fbr what he considered two species of viviparous flies, Musca vivipara mojor, a replacement name given
by De Geer fbr Miisca carnaria Linnaeus, and Miisca vivipara minor. De Geer gave detailed
illustrations and descriptions undoubtedly referable to larvae of SZircophaga sp., here
fbllowing the broad definition of this genus outlined by Pape (1996). The Swedish material
studied by De Geer could belong to one or more species from several subgenera, including
Sarcophaga (sensu strieto), which by default of Partington's (1837) typification includes S carnaria. De Geer's detailed plates even show the first illustration ever made of male sarcophagid genitalia, which I have identified as belonging to the species Stircophaga (Pandelleisca) similis Meade (Pape, 1993). Linnaeus had close ties to De Geer and it is likely that they shared information prior to the publication of the 10th edition of Systema AJOturae. In a nomenclatural context, however, Linnaeus' biological note is a poor pointer to
real spe ¢ imens and can hardly be considered unambiguous evidence fbr an extensive type
senes.
The mention of [North] America as part ofthe distribution would suggest a whole range of sarcophagine subgenera, though not Sbrcophaga (sensu stricto), which only recently was introduced to eastern Canada (Pape, 1996, see note on S subvicina RohdendorC p. 14). Interestingly, we have a clue to pinpoint what appears to be ari American contingent to the
type series. The De Geer collection at the Swedish Museum ofNatural History contains one
female specimen standing under the name Musca vivipara mojor and carrying a handwritten,
"Carriaria.". irregular label (handstyle not interpreted) giving I have earlier left this female NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
261 Vbl,53 Suppl,2, 2002
unidentified 1993), (Pape, but a re-examination of the specimen has convinced me that it belongsto Sarcophaga (?Veobellieria) bullata Parker, which is a common species in eastern Nonh America breeding in garbage and carrion (specimen compared with females from a bred series from South Carolina). De Geer (1776) stated Pennsylvania to be part of the distribution of his Musca vivipara mojor, and it is not unlikely that the female was collected by the Linnaean disciple Per Kalm. Linnaeus is known to have described insect species on specimens m De Geer's collection, and he might have Iearned about or even studied the femaleSbrcophaga bullata. In any case, De Geer (1776) was soon added as an authoritative reference to Musca carnaria, and the American-European distribution was maintained (e.g., Gmelin, 1790).
The literaturesources (Aldrovandus, Frisch, Jonston, Linnaeus, Reaumur, Roesslin) cited by Linnaeus (1758) are explicit references to earlier treatments of what Linnaeus considered to be Sbrcophaga carnaria, and as such the specimens treated (described, illustrated) therein, irrespectiye of their historical fate, are to be regarded as part of the type series fbllowing Article 72.4.1 [72(b)(i)]. Reaumur (1738), fbr example, extensively described what he called
"des "des mouches vivipares" and mouches grises" (pp. 408-430), and his illustrations of females with distinct black thoracic stripes (pl. 29, figs 4-6) and his carefu1 description of recessed posterior larval spiracles (p. 428) accompanied with an illustration showing the almost vertical spiracular slits (pl. 29, fig. 2) leave no doubt that he was studying one or more species of Sbrcophaga (sensu lato). Reaumur caught gravid females indoors searching for to larviposit places (p. 408), which most likely included Sbreophaga (Liop)tgia) argyrostoma (Robineau-Desvoidy), which is one of the few European species of Sarcophagidae that frequents 'meat' houses to reproduce in mammal carrion, i.e., (Leclercq and Verstraeten, 1988; Schumann, 1990). No attempt has been made here to trace fUrther these pre-Linnaean concepts, but Linnaeus evidently based his concept ofMusca carnaria not only on material in
his own collection but, through his literature sources, on an unlrnown number of additional specimens that are likely to represent additional species ofSbrcophaga (s.L).
LECTOTYPEDESIGNAT-ION
Haliday (1851) was the first to study and publish explicitly on the Linnaean material of Musca carnaria housed at the Linnean Society in London. He gives only the brief statement ""53. = Carnaria," Sarcophaga id. Mg.", which does not qualify as a lectotype designation and in itself is hardly infbrmative considering the insuffTicient knowledge available for Skercophaga carnaria sensu Meigen (and other 19th century authors) as is elaborated below. Tbwnsend "Musca (1 938: 64), under his entry fbr Sarcophaga, gives carnaria Linne [. . , .] Ht - Origin, Sweden; location, Uppsala or lost". While this is an explicit reference to a holotype ("Ht"), it appears from the context that it is coniectural, and it does not refer to one particular specimen, for which reasons it does not fu1fi1 the requirements for a pre-2000 lectotype NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocletyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
262
Med. Entomol. Zool.
designation. When Richet (1987) studied the Linnaean material ofM carnaria more than a century after Haliday (brought to him during a visit at The Natural History Museum, A.C. Pont pers, comm.), he fbund two specimens under the name Musca carnaria. These were
considered as syntypes without further discussion, and ene ofthese, carrying the handwritten
"53 label carnaria" (Richet, 1987: fig. 1), was chosen as lectotype (Fig. 1). The other specimen, which had no label at all, was thereby automatically designated as paralectotype.
The nominal taxon represented by the lectotype was identified as a senior synonym of
Sarcophaga vuigaris RohdendorC 1937 and Sbrcophqga dotosa Lehrer, 1967, while the taxon
Stircqphaga carnaria of authors, not Linnaeus, was considered synonymous with the nominal
taxon Musca variegata Scopoli, 1763, ofwhich the type material has been lost. The lectotype canies no locality information but was probably collected in Sweden,
DISCuSsloN
Lehrer (2000) criticised Richet's (1987) lectotype designation and the proposed nemenclatural changes from the perspective that the nomenclature relating to Stireophaga carnaria and the application of the name have been stable for a very long time (".., plus de "... 200 ans" and plus de 170 ans" respectively). This is incorrect. The concept ofthe nominal taxon SZ2ncophaga carnaria (Linnaeus, 1758), first placed in this combination by Meigen
(1826), certainly has changed throughout most of its taxonomic history, which is even implicit
in one of Lehrer's own arguments against the lectotype designation, namely that the entire
Linnaean type series probably was composed of several, yet mostly unidentifiable species, Lehrer apparently considers Meigen (1826) as pivotal in the application of the narne Sarcophaga carnaria, probably because of the introduction ofthe new generic combination
.l
' t ttt tt t t t/ -tt
1 t- S, ' {/. I /.ttttt..t,l',: tt/Sfi･ 11, op tt 1 ･ .' ,,'･ i･ ,F ･/fi di,･g - J :/,,7,,I{,/ge/1/t, -･ , I ' '',, ,, ts,･,E.,thg .tt ¢ ,I･ /su.ll, 1/. W . . VI in' l# ,･ 't: lg g.m . fi /ff t/ttth ,. t, - ,t-ge-/.ij .k, aj. .' i,,,, . ,,. .,,P. k ua tt . / tt t: ,(.,L' i/, :/,:/:;ig'-'.$k'l'imfi
,lilfi･11,,2･llEl-t/"//il//.I･･tW･/7･i' Fig. 1, Lectotype male ofMusca carnaria Linnaeus, 1758, deposited in the Linnean Society of Lond on, The specimen has been dissected and double-mounted as part ofthe study Leading to the designation by Richet (1987). Photograph by R, Richet, reproduced with permission.
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
263
Vbl.53 Suppl.2, 2002
and Meigen's substantial impact on sarcophagid taxonomy. Other authors have fo11owed this
"Sbrcophcrga line, for exarnple Kramer (1905a), who cited carnaria Mg a.)" indicating that Kramer's primary authority for his concept of this species was Meigen rather tlian Linnaeus.
But note that Kramer was not at all at ease with Meigen's circurnscription of S, carnaria. He noted that the most precise ("schEirfsten") diagnosis was that of Meade (1876) and he regretted "Leider the absence of a sufficiently detailed characterisation of Sbrcqphaga carnaria: fehlt
bisher, soweit mir die Litteratur bekamit ist, eine genUgende Kennzeichnung dieser gemeinen
"Die Art". B6ttcher (1913a: 171) put it in a more colourfu1 way: Systematik der 'fachinidengattung Sarcophagu Meig. war noch bis vor kurzen ein so klippeureiches
Fahrwasser, dass selbst die besten Dipterologen bei ihren Versuchen, zu einer befi;iedigenden
Arteneinteilung zu gelangen mindestens Havarie, meist sogar v611igen Schiffl)ruch zu erleiden pflegten". This is not exactly a close match to Lehrer's bold statement that Sarcqphagu "le carnaria is nom d'une espece, utilise comme tel depuis plus de 170 ans par tous les
specialistes mondiaux". It is noteworthy that Linnaeus' original concept of a New World
occurrence of Sbrcqphaga carnaria lived on into the 20th century (e.g., Lockwood, 1873;
RileM 1875; Fyles, 1888; Lugger, 1896; Comstock, 1897; Verrill, 1903; Fitch, 1918), until
"SZxrcophaga corrected by Aldrich's (1916) thorough rnonograph of the Nonh American and allies". A notion of a Japanese occurrence ofS carnaria survived fbr even longer (Suzuki,
1915; Matsumura, 1931; Shiraki, 1932; Yasumatsu and Watanabe, 1965), and examples from
the applied literature may take the prize by still having problems adapting to the fact that flesh
fly maggots involved in myiasis and fbrensic entomology do not have SZxrcophaga carnaria
(in whatever sense) as a default identity (e.g., Mian et al., 1983ab; Introna et al, 1998). The "carnaria" only comprehensive biological studies available for either use the name in an
inclusive sense to comprise at least three widespread species (Eberhardt and Steiner, 1952; Eberhardt, 1955), or fai1 to make a complete separation, as did Kirchberg (1954), who even
"S. misidentified S, lehmanni as carnaria ssp. vuigaris" (see Kirchberg, 1954, fig. 2). Meigen (1826) proposed the genus Sarcqphaga but evidently, and according to at least Kramer and Bdttcher, did not clearly circumscribe nor fu11y resolve his S. carnaria. The use
of male terminalia in the taxonomy of Slrircophaga and relatives had its breakthrough much later, with the publication of the comprehensive work of Pandelle (1896). Yet even Pandelle himself did not provide a single figure ofthe male terminalia. As stated by Aldrich (1916: 5),
"the lack of illustrations in [Pandelle's] work prevented immediate recognition of the bri11iant
success of the method, and it was a decade befbre it made an appreciable impression". Still,
remarkably soon after Pandelle's work, illustrations of male terminalia becarne the sine gua non of Sdrcophaga taxonomy: Villeneuve (1899), Roselle (1904), Kramer (1904; 1905a,b; 1911), B6ttcher (1912, 1913a,b), Parker (1914, 1916), Johnston and Tiegs (1921), Mueller (1922, 1924), Senior-White (1924), etc. Meigen certainly was a key authority for many early concepts of SZircophcrga spp., but the modern circumscription of Skercophaga carnaria of authors grew out of BOttcher's (1913b) and Mueller's (1922) extensive studies of male NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
264
Med. Entomol, Zool.
genitalia to surface fully in the magnum opus ofRohdendorf (1937). "deux Lehrer points explicitly to erreurs fbndamentales" (p. 27) made by Richet. The first is an allegedly prejudicial interpretation of the Code and a subjective interpretation of specimens found in the Linnaean collection, the other is Richet's inability ("incapacite") to
identify the true number ef species included in the original type series. Lehrer argues, citing
from the Code, that Richet violated ("contrevient") Article 73.2.1 [73(b)(i)] because he could "constituent not prove that the specimens la base de descriptions [.,.] publiees anterieurernent et sur lesquelles [Linnaeus] a fonde en totalite ou en partie le nouveau taxon nominal du niveau-espece". Linnaeus certainly gave a long list of references fbr his Musca carnaria,
which as discussed above may be construed as sources on which Linnaeus fbunded his
concept of the nominal species and in which case specimens referred to in these references
would be syntypes. The quote from the Code, however, refers euplicitly and exclusively to specimens not seen by the author himself but by other (and earlier) authors. Lehrer is either citing the Code out of context, or hints at what would indeed be a peculiar case of specimens seen by pre-1758 authors inexplical)ly finding their way into Linnaeus' collection without
being studied by Linnaeus himself Lehrer further maintains that Richet even violated
"certains Article73.2,3 [73(b)(iii)] because he based his nomenclatural act on exemplaires, trouves aleatoirement, mais sans aucune mention sur le nom de 1'auteur qui les a recoltes ou sur leur localite d'origine et qui ne peuvent donc pas etre consideres comme les specimens,
donc les syntypes, d'une serie-type". Nothing in that Article mandates citing the name of the
collector or the locality fbr the specimen designated as lectotype, nor weuld the presence or
absence of such information in itselfhave any bearing on the validity ofthe nomenclatural act
of designating a lectotype, nor is such infbrmation required to establish the identity of
speclmens as syntypes.
Lehrer states that Richet fails to provide proof that the two specimens in the Linnaean collection actually are true syntypes. It is well known tliat establishing true syntype status fbr
old material may pose problems where labels are barely informative or even missing, or if the
collection has been reworked extensively with original specimens being moved, lost or
replaced. Tlie Linnaean collection, however, may be an extraordinary exception ainong these
very old collections in that a large part ofit was acquired in 1784 by Sir James Edward Smith,
who brought it to London where he apparently carefully maintained it until, after his death, it
was purchased by the Linnean Society (Day and Fitton 1978). As vividly described by Pont (1981), there are differences in opinion as to the completeness ofthe Linnaean collection, but
"has 'vandalised' Pont arrives at the conclusion that the Diptera collection not been in any way
since the death of Linnaeus". The strongest piece ofevidence to the originality ofthe syntypes,
apart from their very presence in the Linnaean collection, is the Iabel on the specimen chosen
"53 as lectotype. It is an elongate piece of paper giving carnaria" referring to its being the
'Lirmaean 53rd species within genus Musca sensu Linnaeus. The label is of the type' (Day and Fitton, 1978) and probably written by Linnaeus himself as the handstyle matches the notes NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
265
Vb].53 Suppl.2, 2002
written by Linnaeus in the rnargins of his own copies of Systema ?Vbturae (Haliday, 1851). Day and Fitton (1978) noted that Linnaeus' labels originally were not pinned directly with a specimen but only subsequently fixed to one particular exemplar, probably by J.E. Smith. With the two syntypes ofMusca carnaria being conspecific, this has no particular importance.
In short, two specimens in the original Linnaean collection, of which one canies a label
written by Linnaeus himself and with unambiguous reference to infbrmation in the original
description amounts to fair evidence that one, and probably both, are syntypes. Lehrer seems
"ne to disregard available evidence when concluding that the two specimens studied by Richet
peuvent donc pas etre consideres comme les specimens, donc les syntypes, d'une serie-type" "Richet and he even proclaims that ne peut (et il ne pourra jamais) prouver que les exemplaires de la collection de Londres n'appartiennent pas aux autres especes diffErentes d'une supposee serie de Linnaeus". In this reasoning Lehrer is in line with Mayr (1969: 368), "No who took the firm stand that nomenclatural decision should ever be made by relying on a
"Linnaean "There type"" because, again according to Mayr, is no such thing". Yet nothing in
the current Code endorses that specimens in old collections should in any way be exempted from being potential (syn)types. Any nomenclatural problem must be judged on its own merits, and in the particular case of imsca carnaria neither internal nor external evidence leads us to doubt that at least the lectotype, and probably the paraleetotype as well, is part of
the original material upon which Linnaeus based his description, Requiring proof beyond what is available is unfair to history and conflicts with current nomenclatural practices. "deuxieme The erreur majeure" of Richet, as given by Lehrer, relates to what Lehrer
described as an inability by Richet to identify the number of species involved in the original
type series ("son incapacite a .... preciser de combien d'especes cette serie est (ou a ete) constituee"). That Richet did not elaborate on the number of species possibly involyed in Linnaeus' concept of ILdeisca carnaria is correct and certainly regrettable from a historical
perspective. One might argue that Richet did not fbllow Recommendation 74A (both editions) "should made fbr lectotype designations, stating that an author, when designating a lectotype,
[in general] act consistently with, and in any event should give great weight to, previously accepted taxonomic restrictions of the application of the name" (note the stronger emphasis
"in by omitting general" in the 4th edition). I fully agree with this recommendation, but recornmendations are not part of the legislative text. Richet indeed had no possibility of
choosing an exemplar lectotype, i.e., an existing specimen of a syntypic series, in agreement
"accepted with what was at that time the taxonomic restriction", but he certainly had other
options that would have conserved current usage and as such hardly would have aroused any
opposition. The most obvious solution would have been to designate a neotype fbr MzLsca
carnaria under the plenary powers of the ICZN. [[hompson (1994) correctly pointed out that
respect for history matters. However, in the case of Musca carnaria such respect could have
been expressed in two different ways: either by choosing an existing exemplar from what
most probably constitutes original specimens studied by Linnaeus hirnself and make this
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society of Medical Entomology and Zoology
266 Med. Entomol. Zool,
narne-bearing in agreement with the relevant articles of the Code; or by acknowledging the
'catch-all' evident nature of Linnaeus' original concept of imsca carnaria and paying tribute to the emerging common usage (i.e., restriction) by designating a neotype under the plenary powers of the Commission. The decision is in the hands ofthe First Reviser and Richet fu1fils
that role. Articie 23.6 (no match in 3rd edition) is explicit on the Principle of Priority as
"the applied to Richet's nomenclatural act: first nomenclatural act taken in respect of a name
or a nominal taxon to achieve any of the fo11owing constitutes the only valid such act: i.e. acts
taken under the First Reviser Principle ...... designation oflectotypes ...". Richet was the first
to explicitly and unarnbiguously designate a lectotype for Musca carnaria Linnaeus, l758,
"the and his act remains only valid such act". Only if a specimen designated as lectotype is
demonstrated not to have been an original syntype would the designation be invalid: 74.2 [74(a)(v)]. Lehrer mentions that type exemplars ("exemplaires types") of Sbreophaga carnaria were selected ("sont precisees") in the works of Meigen, Pandelle, Schiner, Bdttcher, etc., and "Dans according to Lehreg une certaine mesure, on peut dire que ces auteurs ont fait, depuis
longtemps et avant Richet, la selection du type de Sarcophaga carnaria et le travail de ce
dernier est totalement inopportun et inutile", Judging the work of others to be absolutely
useless is to take an extreme position, and one which would seem to require a much more rigorous and consistent argumentation than that presented. Certainly, the older authors
mentioned by Lehrer had their concepts of Sbrcophaga carnaria, but, as already discussed,
these old concepts were ambiguous, and the concepts of lectotype and neotype were actively
being developed in the early 1900s (Frizzell, 1933), to be effectively applied in the genus
Stircophaga much later, Richet's lectotype designation, however, implied that the
nomenclature ofSZircophaga carnaria of authors, not Linnaeus, needed revision. Richet acted
pragmatically, applying the oldest available name listed in the synonymy of this species: imsca variegata Scopoli, 1763 (e.g., Verves, 1986). Lehrer strongly opposed Richet's
resurrection ofMusca variegnta with the argument that relevant types are lost and that neither
description nor figures ofmale terminalia were ever published. He considered the resurrection as subjective, legislatively incorrect ("abusif'), uncertain, without taxonomic justification, and
"une based on illusion qui ne peut etre acceptee serieusement" (p. 28). Lehrer argued that the
nominal taxon Musca variegata should be suppressed as it was not based on any exemplar
type - a standpoint contrasting with his attempts of avoiding a narne-bearing exemplar type
fbr S carnaria by invalidating Richet's explicit designation of exactly such a specimen. Yet
by resurrecting Musca variegata, Richet is very close to creating a new situation analogous to
the one he sets out to solve when designating a lectotype for Musca carnaria: He designates
an exemplar type for one nominal taxon, which necessitates the resurrection of another
nominal taxon equally in need oftypification. This could be settled by designating a neotype
for Musca variegata, yet the combined act ofa lectotype for At[ carnaria plus a neotype for ILtt
variegata would still appear more complicated, and more confusing, than having simply
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
267
Vbl.53 Suppl.2, 2002
designated a neotype for Musca carnaria in agreement with what was at that time the curTent
usage. Lehrer maintains that Richet has not understood ("n'a pas compris") the Principle of Priority and provides a quote from Article 23.2 [23(a)]. I take Lehrer's critique to include as
"underlying "key well the fourth principle" (4th ed., p. XX) or element" (3rd ed., p. xiv) of the
"rigid Code, recommendmg against application of the Principle of Priority" when this would
"destmctive be of stal)ility or universalityl or would cause confusion". Any lectotype
designation should be done to help the user community by settling a nomenclatural arnbiguity,
thereby alleviating a (potential) source of confusion. Richet fixes the identity by providing an
unarnbiguous tie between a name and its sole name-bearing specimen, in full agreement with
the Code, but as there was no confusion at the time of designation, Richet's decision to
abandon current usage seems to have been unnecessarily rigid.
'go Richet's action may arguably be considered rigid, and it is inescapable that a with the
flow' would have caused less conflict. As mentioned al)ove, the circumscription of
Sbreqphaga carnaria of authors began stal)ilising some 50 years before Richet's lectotype
desigriation, and at the time of desigriation stability and universality could hardly have been
questioned. Transferring a very old and widely used valid name ffom ene taxon to another unavoidably introduces a potential confusion fbr future studies. Yet in the case ofS carnaria, the confusion may be of 1imited sigriificance. Most of the older faunistic literature giving
records of SZireophaga carnaria cannot be considered reliable for reasons given above, and
they will remain forever doUbtfu1 unless voucher specimens, if at al1 avai1al)le, are
re-examined. More recent faunistic papers with recerds ofS carnaria eften refer explicitly to the author's nomenclatural authority (e.g., Werner, 1997: 136) or at least mention the name of the taxonornist responsible for the identification (e.g., Schembri et al, 1991: 270), or the papers include several species of Sarcophaga (s. stn), thereby minimising the risk of nomenclatural confusion (e.g., Draber-Monko, 1971, 1973; PovolnY and Znojil, 1990a,b). Uncertainties and confusion wiil relate mainly to papers published shortly after Richet's lectotype designation and with no indication ofnomenclatural details, e.g., Schurnann (1990). A recent and almost parallel case exists in the [lachinidae, where Andersen (1996) designated a lectotype for Musea genicalata De Geeg 1776 (Tachinidae, genus Siphona Meigen). In so doing, the well-known name geniculata was installed as the valid name for
another species, and Andersen resurTected the old narne Musca urbana HarTis, 1780 as a valid
name for geniculata authors, not De Geer, by designating a neotype. Andersen's "potential nomenclatural act was subsequently criticised for its severe confusion" by Herting
et al. (1999), who asked the ICZN to conserve Siphona geniculata of authors by replacing the
lectetype with a neotype in agreement with current usage. This request was recently aMrmed
(ICZN 2001). The potential confusion in the geniculata case relates especially to the rich applied literature with reliable records (see references in Hening et al., 1999), and at least on this point the case is markedly different from that of SZrrcophaga carnaria. In additioq
Richet's lectotype designation of Mttsca carnaria is now almost 15 years old, and whether NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
268 Med, Entemol. Zool,
considered consistent or confusing it is unquestionably in agreement with the relevant ICZN
articles and has gained widespread acceptance in the taxonomic literature (e.g., Pape, 1987,
1996; Fan, 1992; Thompson and Pont, 1994; PovolnY and Verves 1997; PovelnY, 1997;
Chandler, 1998; Draber-Monko, 1998; Rudzinski, 1999).
CONCLUSION
Through most ofthe 20th century an ever more refined concept of Stircophaga carnaria of authors evolved (e.g., Kramer, 1911; B6ttcher, 1913b; Mueller, 1922; Rohdendorf; 1937; Emden, 1954; Lehrer, 1973; PovolnY and Verves, 1987). Richet (1987) could, and in my opinion should, have ohosen to fo11ow this emerging concept, but he chose to base the narne
on the Lirmaean specimens, effectively, and fbr the first time ever, unarnbiguously tying the
name Musca carnaria to one exemplar type. This decision has in a short time penetrated the taxasphere and won general, although not universal, acceptance. This may afLer al1 seem
promising for stability and universality) and fUrther action cannot be recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Drs B. Merz, Geneva, A.C. Pont, Oxfbrd, and F.C. Thompson, Washington, D.C., kindly
read and cornmented on a draft of the manuscript. Mr R. Richet generously made his
photograph of the male Iectotype of?L[ carnaria Lirmaeus available.
}tsFERENCES
AIdrich, J. M. I916. Sareophaga and allies in Nerth America. Themas Say Foundation 1 : 1-301, postscript
1 unnumbered page, 1 6 Pls + index 3 unnumbered pages.
Andersen, S. 1996. The Siphonini (Diptera: fachinidae) of Europe. Fkeuna EntomoL SZrandl, 33: 1-148,
BOttcher, J, 1912, Die mannlichen Begattungswerkzeuge bei dem Genus Stireophaga Meig, und ihre
Bedeutung fur die Abgrenzung der Arten. Deut. EhtomoL Zleitschn, [1912]: 525-544, 705-736.
"Rondanis" "Stit=ophaga" B6ttcher, J. (1913a), Eine Revision der [[brpen zum Genus Meig. BolL Soc.
Ento,nol. 1tal., 44: 171-199.
B6ttcheg J. 1913b. Die mtinnlichen Begattungswerkzeuge bei dem Genus Sarcophcrga Meig, und ihre
Bedeutung fur die Abgrenzung der Arten. Deut. Ehototnoi. Zleitschn, [19T3]: 1-16, 115-130, 239-254, 351-377,
Chandler, R J. 1998. Checklists ofinsects ofthe British Isles. Hbndbooksfor the ldbntijlcation ofBritish
insects, 12 (New Series) Part 1: Diptera: xx + 1-234,
Comstock, J, H, 1897. Dipterous parasites. in: Report upon Cotton insects. pp. 203-211, United States
Commission ofAgriculture, Washington, DC; 511 pp.
Day; M. D. and Fitton, M. G, 1978. Re-curation of the Linnaean Hymenoptera (Insecta), with a NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society of Medical Entomology and Zoology
269 VOI.53 Suppl.2, 2002
reassessment ofthe taxonomic importance of the collection. Biel. X Linn. Sbc., 10: 181-198.
De Geer, C. von. 1776. MUmoirespour servir a l'histoire des insectes. Nlo1, 6. Stockholm; viii + 523 pp.,
Draber-Mofiko, A. 1971. Einige Calyptrata (Diptera) vom Bieszczady-Gebirge. F}'agnenta founistica,
17: 483-543, [In Polish with Russian and German summaries.] Draber-Mofiko, A, 1973, Ubersicht der einheimischen Arten der Familie Sarcophagidae (Diptera).
ftagmenta Eaunistica, 19: 157-225, [In Polish with Russian and Gerrnan summaries.l
Draber-Mo6ko, A, 1998. Dipterans ofthe families Sarcophagidae and Rhinophoridae and also supp]ement
Calliphoridae (Diptera Calyptrata) ofthe Roxtocze. F>,agmentafounistica, 41: 77-92 + Table 5 with
five unnumbered pages. [In Polish with English summary.]
Eberhardt, A,-I, 1955. Untersuchungen Uber das Sclmarotzen von Slarcophaga carnaria an RegenwUrmern
und V:rgleich der Biologie einiger Sarcophaga Arten, Zleitschn Morzphol. Okolog. 7irere, 43: 616-647.
Eberhardt, A.-I. and Steiner, G. 1952. Untersuchungen Uber das Schmarotzen von Sarcophaga spp. in
RegenwUrmern, Zbitschn Morphol. (]kolog, Zere, 41:147-l60.
Emden, F. I. van, 1954. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha Calyptrata (I), Section (a). Tachinidae and Callipheridae.
Hbndbooksfor the ldbntCfication ofBritish insects, 1O(4a): 1-133.
Evenhuis, N. L. 1997, Litteratura Tczxonomica Dipterorzam a 758-193a). Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. Vbls
1-2; 871 pp,
Fan Zi-de 1992. Key to the common China. 2"d edition. Shanghai Institute of EntomologM (ed,). .17ies of + xlviii 992 pp,, 40 p]s. Academia Sinica. [In Chinese with English subtitle and preface. English
descriptiens of all new taxa p. 912-927.]
Fitch, C. P, 1918. Animal parasites affbcting equines, X Amen leten Mbdl Assoc., 53: 3l2-330.
Frizzell, D, L. 1933, ferminology oftypes. .4men A4idZand?VZitun, 14: 637-668,
Fyles, T, B. 1888. Insects troublesome in the household and how to deal with them, Ann. Rap. EhotomoL
Soc. Ont., 17: 33-39.
Gmelin, J. F. 1790. Caroli a Linne, systema naturae per regna tria naturae secundum classes, ordines,
genera, species, cum caracteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima tertia, aucta, reforrriata.
Vbl, 1, part 5; pp. 2225-3020. G.E. Beer, Lipsiae [= Leipzig].
HalidaM A. H. 1851. Wissenschaftlichen Mittheilungen. Sendschreiben von Alexis H, Haliday an C. Z.
Dohrn Uber die Dipteren der in London befindlichen Linneischen Sammlung. Stettiner Entomol. Zbit.,
12: 131-145.
Herting, B,, Tschorsnig, H.-P and O'Hara, J, E. 1999. MzLsca geniculata De Geer, 1776 and Stomopa
cristata Fabricius, 1805 (currently Siphona geniculata and Siphona cristata; Insecteg Diptera): proposed
conservation of usage of the specific names by the replacement of the lectotype of M[ geniculata by a
neotype, Bull. ZboL AJbmenclature, 56: 235-239,
ICZN. 1985, Ihternational Code of Zboiogical ?Vbmenclature, Third edition. Internatienal Trust fbr
Zoological Nomenclature, London. xx + 338 pp,
ICZN, 1999. international Code ofZbologicat Nbmenclature. Fourth edition. xxix + 306 pp,, International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
ICZN. 2001, Opinion 1975. Musca geniculata De Geer, 1776 and Stomexys cristata Fabrieius, 1805 NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
270 Med, Entomol. Zool,
(currently Siphona genicutata and Siphona cristata; Insecta, Diptera): Specific names conserved by the
replacement ofthe lectotype ofM geniculata by a neotype. BuU. ZooL IVbmenclature, 58: 154-155,
lntrona, F,, Jr, Campobasso, C. R and Di Fazie, A. 1998. Three case studies in forensic entomelogy frem
southern Italy. J jFlorensic Stri., 43: 210-214,
Johnston, T. H. and Tiegs, C. W. 1921. New and little-known sarcophagid flies frem south-eastern
Queensland, Proc.RayalSoc. eueensland 33: 46-90.
Kerkkonen, M, 1959, Peter Kalm's North American journey: its ideo]ogical background and results. Studia historica (IHelsinkij, 1 : 1-260,
Kirchberg, E. D. 1954. Zur Larvennahrung einiger heimischer Sarcophcrga-Arten, insbesondere zur Frage,
ob S. carnaria L. als obligatorischer Regenwurmparasit anzusehen sei. (DipteTa, fachinidae). Zleitschn
Mbtlphol. Okolog. Rere, 43: 99-112.
Kirchberg, E. D. 1961. Zucht von Sbrcophaga carnaria L. (Diptera fachinidae) aus einer
Freilandpopulation von RegenwUrmern des Genus Ailolobophora Eisen (Oligoch., Lumbricidae), (Zur
Kennmis der Gattung Stireophaga Mg, III.). Anzeig. Sbhad, 34: 6-7. [In German with English summary.]
Krameg H, 1904, Zur Gattung Sartophaga, Zleitschn th,st. Ilym. Dipt., 4: 347-349.
Kramer, H. 1905a. ArtgTenze von Sarcophaga carnaria Mg, (L.) und 2 neue SZiT=ophaga Arten. Zeitschn
Syst. Hiim. Dipt., 5: 12-16.
Kramer, H. I905b. Zur Gattung Sareophaga (Diptera), Zeitschn Elyst. flym. Dipt., 5: 329-332.
Kramer, H. 191l. Die [[lachtnen der Oberlausitz. Abhand ?VtituJforsch. Gesetl. Gdirlitz, 27: 117-166.
Leclercq, M, and Verstraeten, C. 1988. Entomologie et medicine legale, datation de la mert: insectes et
autres arthropodes trouv6s sur les cadavres humains. Bull. Ann. Soc. Rqyale Beige E}itomol., 124:
311-317.
Lehreg A. Z, 1973. La taxonomie du genre Sareophqga Meigen (Famille Sarcophagidae, Diptera). Annot.
ZboL Botan., 89: 1-22.
Lehrer, A. Z. 2000. Point de vue critique sur le statut de Sarcophaga carnaria (Linnaeus, I758) (Diptereg
Sarcophagidae). Bull. Soc. Entomoi. Muthouse, [200e]: 27-29.
Linnaeus, C, 1746. thuna Svecica sistens animalia Sveciae regni: qvach'upedia, Aves, Amphibia, Pisces,
insecta, lermes, distributa per classes and ordines, genera and species, Cum difflerentiis specierum,
synonyrnis auctorum, nominibiLs incolarum, tocis habitationton, descriptionibus insectorum. [xxviii] +
411 pp, 2 pls. L. Salvii, Stoekholmiae,
Linnaeus, C. I758. 51ystema naturae per regna tria naturae. 10th Ed,, Vbl. 1, 824 pp, Holmiae [=
Stockholm], L. Salvii.
Lockwood, S. 1873. A viviparous fly (Sarcqphaga carnaria) with weodcuts, Amen IVbtun, 7: 193-197,
Luggeg O. 1896. IiVrstAnnual Report ofthe entomologist ofthe State Experiment Station ofthe Uhiversity
ofMinnesota. pp.1-155, 16 pls.Minneapelis. rlbkoshoin, Matsumura S. 193l , 6000 illustrated inseets of.lapan Einpire, [Ibkyo; ii (explanatory notes) +
1.497 pp + 23 pp (index),
Mayg E. 1969. Principles pfsystematic zoology, xi + 428 pp. Bombay and New Delhi: [lata McGraw-Hill NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalof Medical Entomology and Zoology
271
Vbl,53 Suppl,2, 2002
Publishing Company.
Meade, R, H, l876. Monograph upon the British species of Sbreophaga or fiesh-fiies. Entomol. Mon.
Mag,, 12: 216-220, 260-268.
Meigen, J. WL l826. systematische Beschreibung cler bekannten europdiischen zweij7tigeligen lhsekten.
FtitV7er 7}heil. xii + 4 1 2 pp., pls, 42-54. Schulz, Harnm,
Mian, E. U., Agostini, G. and Gianfaldoni, R. 1983. Gangrena fulminante dei genitali con miasi da
Stircophaga carnaria. Chronic. derm., 14: 461-466,
Mian, E, U., Agostini, G., Gianfaldoni, R. and Loi, G. 1983. Sull'habitat cutaneo di alcune miasi da
Sbrcophaga carnaria (L.), Atti Cong7: naz. itaL Entomol., 13: 545-548,
Mueller, A. 1922. Uber den bau des Penis der 1lachinarier und seinen Wert fUr die Aufstellung des
Stammbaumes und die Artdiagnose. Are. Nbttt,:, 88A(2): 45-168.
Mueller, A. 1924, Dipterologische Mitteilungen. I. Die mannlichen Begattungsetgane der Calliphorinen
und einiger Sarcophaginen. II. Dolichopodidae. varia. III. Zur Kenntnis der subfamilie Tanypinae.
fe,:hana Zool.-bot, GeseU. maen, 73: 51-111.
Pandelle, L, 1 896, Etudes sur les muscides de France. IIe partie (suite). Reu Entomol,, 15: 1-230.
Pape, T. 1987. The Sarcephagidae (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark, Fbuna E>itomoL scand[, 19:
1-203,2pl,
Pape, T, 1993, The Sarcophagidae (Diptera) described by C. De Geer, J. H. S. Siebke, and O. Ringdah1.
Entomol. Fenn., 4: 143-150.
Pape, T, 1996. Catalogue ofthe Sarcophagidae ofthe world (Insecta: Diptera). Mbm. EntomoL, int., 8:
1-558,
Parker, R. R. 1914, Sarcophagidae ofNew England: males ofthe genera Ravinia and Boettcheria, Proc.
Boston Soc. IVbt. Hist,, 35: 1-77.
Parker, R. R. 1916. Sarcophagidae ofNew England: Genus Sarcophaga. J ofIVe", }lork EntomoL Sbc,, 24:171-175.
Partington, C. F. 1837, 711ie British cyclqpaedia ofnatural history: eombining a scientijic elassijication of
animals, plants, and minerats; with apopular viev oftheir habits, econonu4 and structure, by authors
eminent in theirparticular department, Third volume, [Part 37, pp. 577-640. Rosaceae-Seal.] London.
Persson. R I,, Pont, A, C. and Michelsen, V, 1984. Notes en the insect collection of Charles De Geer, with a
revision of his species of Famiiidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae (Diptera). EhtomoL scand. 15:
89-95.
Pont, A, C. 1981. The Linnaean species of the families Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae (Insecta:
Diptera). BioL JI Linn. Soc,, 15: 165-175.
PovolnY, D. 1997, Sarcophagidae. pp. 98-100. Ih: Chvala, M. (ed.) Check list ofDiptera (?}iseetcV ofthe
Czech and Slovak Republics, Karolinum Charles University Press; 1-130 pp,
PovolnY, D, and Verves, YU.G. 1987. Revision der Palaarktischen Arten der Gattung Sareophaga Meigen,
1828 [sic!] (Diptera, Sarcophagidae). Acta EntomoL Mus, IVdt, Pragae, 42: 89-147.
PovolnY, D. and Verves, 1fu, G. 1997. The flesh-flies ofCentral Europe (Insecta, Diptereg Sarcophagidae).
{ipixiana Suppl,, 24: 1-260.
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society of Medical Entomology and Zoology
272 Med, Entomol. Zool.
PevolnY, D. and Znojil, V, 1990a. Synanthropic trends in urban and extraurban taxocenoses of
Sarcophagidae (Diptera) in three central European cities. Adlem. inst, Osivaldb C)ttz, 84 (suppl. 4): 441-447.[1989]
PevolnY, D, and Znojil, VL 1990b, Vergleich zwischen Sarcophagini-taxaz6nosen (Insecta, Diptera)
ThUringens und der [Ilschechoslowakei. Rudotstdidter natur-historischen Sehn, 3: 43-61 , iJbl. Reaurnug R, A. F, de, 1738. Mic;moirespour servir a l'histoire des insectes. 4. xxxiv + 1-636; 44 pls.
Imprimerie Royale, Paris.
"Mouche Richet, R, 1987, L'identite de la a damier", SZircophaga carnaria (Linn6, 1758). BuiL
Soc.EntomoL F>"ance, 9l: 131-135, [1986]
Riley, C. VL l875, Noxious insects. Annual Report ofIVbxiozLs, BenofciaL and other insects ofthe state of
Missouri 7: 1-196 + index pp, I-III.
Rohdendor£ B. B. 1937. Fam, Sarcophagidae, (R 1). hauna ssSR 19: xv + 500 + [1]. [In Russian with
German summary.]
Roselle, F. du, 1904. 0rganes genitaux des sarcophages et necessite de leur examen pour la determination
des especes. Mkim. Sbc, Line'enne IVbrd rvance 11: 5-1O,
Rudzinski, H.-G. 1999. Sarcophagidae. pp. 182-186 In: Schumarm, H, et aL Checkliste der Dipteren
Deutschlands. StttdiaDipt. Sufl)le., 2: 1-354,
Schembri, S., Gatt, P, and Schembri, J. 1991. Recent records of flies from the Maltese Islands (Diptera),
Mlam. Soc. Ehtomol, naL, 70: 255-277.
Schumann, H. 1990, Uber das Nlorkommen von Dipteren in Wbhnraumen. Angewandire Parasit,, 31:
131-141.
Senior-White, R. A. 1924. A revision ofthe sub-family Sarcophaginae in the Oriental Region. Rec, Ihd
Mus., 26: 193-283,
+ ofclassification) + 2 Shiraki, T, 1932. Ibonographia insectortun .laponieum. 2.242 pp 15 pp (explanation
pp. (list efclassification) + 123 pp. (index); 24 plates, Hokuryukan, Tokyo.
Suzuki, M, 1915, A list ofprepared specimens in Htinazono Entomological Laboratot:y established by
Mbtojiro Sttzuki. 90 pp. Suizando Press, Kyoto,
Thompson, F. C. 1994, Postscript. in: Thompson, E C. and Pont, A, C., Systematic database of Musca
names (Diptera). 7heses ZboL, 20: [two unnumbered pages fo11owing p. 219].
Thompson, F. C. and Pont, A, C, 1994. Systematic database ofMiasca names (Diptera). Tlieses ZboL, 20:
1-219. [1993] 'Ibwnsend, C. H. T 1938, Manual of iayielog)L Part VZ Muscoid generic diagr:oses and clata. Stephanostomatini to Ad[oriniini. 309 pp. Itaquaquecetuba, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Charles Tbwnsend and
Filhos.
Verrilt, A. E. 1903, 71ee Berinucla tslands, A.E. Verrill, i-x, 1-548. New Haven, Connecticut.
1terves, YU. G, 1986. Family Sarcophagiclae. in: So6s, A, and Papp, L, (eds), Catalogue ofPalaearetic
Diptera Calliphoridoe-SZincophagidae. Vbl. 12. pp, 58-193, Akademiai Kiad6, Budapest.
Villeneuve, J. 1899, Description de dipteres nouveaux. BulL Soc. EntomoL F)"ance, [1899]: 26-28.
Werner, D. 1997. Die Dipterenfauna verschiedener MUIIdeponien und Kompostierungsanlagen in der
NII-Electronic Library Service The JapanSocietyJapan Society ofMedicalEntomologyof Medical Entomology and Zoology
273
Vbl.53 Suppl.2, 2002
Umgebung von Berlin unter besonderer BerUcksichtigung ihrer Okologie und Bionomie. Studia Dipt.
SulzpL, 1: 1-176.
Yasumatsu, K. and Watanabe, C. 1965. A tentative catalogue qf'insect nattLral enemies ofinjuriozts insects
in Jbpan. Part 2, Hbstparasite-pneclator catalogue. vii + 116 pp. Entomological Laboratoryi Faculty of
Agriculture, Kyushu University
NII-Electronic Library Service